Mixed feelings about WASPI victory

[Fauxflowersnoflowers]

Early 40s here, so this doesn't as such directly affect me, but I've been intrigued by the story about the WASPI campaign and done a bit of reading around it and I'm still confused.

The changes apparently were in the public sphere since as early as 1995 and could have been known about. Many women were aware and did take financial steps to address the changes. The current case seems to centre around whether they should have been personally informed, not was the change fair.

WASPI just said on Women's Hour that they don't object to the equalisation of the pension age, but then callers were objecting to having to work longer and not getting a good retirement, so the two arguments seem to contradiction each other

Also, it seems misunderstood that a compensation payment would be a full reinbursement of the "lost" pension, from my reading it's more likely to be a fixed amount to recognise the fact they should have received a letter. Although again, it appears many did, just not everyone, so who gets the compensation? All of them or just some?

I suppose the other question is how do we pay this? Public services are already stretched badly, childcare costs are crippling and there is a bit of a worry for me that the funds to pay this are going to come out of other areas that will just make the loves of younger women harder and push their pension ages even further back, maybe into their 70s.

Feel really conflicted about it. On one hand kudos to the women for getting this far, but in the other it feels like a really clear example of the importance of properly understanding your own finances and educating yourself about your pension planning.

I'm one of the youngest to fall into the category, my retirement age was 60 when I started in 1994, and obviously was raised very quickly. I was completely aware of the change as was my mum 23 years my senior.

The issue I don't think is the equalisation but the fact they then sped it up so there was a subset of women a year two years younger than my mum who had to wait 4 years for their pension. My ex mil was in this group. If they had kept to the original plan to equalise then increased to 66 after that point nobody could have complained

Yes I think it should have been introduced gradually rather than all at once.

My mum is incredibly financially astute. She’s a WASPI woman who spent her life in education and rammed into my sister and I the importance of pension contributions from a very early age. She’s always had investments etc and financial advisors.

She had no idea that she would not get her state pension at 60. She paid NI for more than the years she was told to and got no information whatsoever that she would be waiting an additional 6 years for her pension. (She’s actually still
working now at almost 70 because she can. Ironically my MIL, who stopped working when she married and is 2 years older, got hers at 60. Totally unfair.)

The issue I don't think is the equalisation but the fact they then sped it up so there was a subset of women a year two years younger than my mum who had to wait 4 years for their pension. My ex mil was in this group. If they had kept to the original plan to equalise then increased to 66 after that point nobody could have complained

This.

It wasn't the plan to raise the age that was at fault - it was the speeding up of that plan, above what had already been communicated, much later down the line. Too late for women to adequately save a pension to cover the additional years of retirement they would need to fully fund and without enough communication specifically to those impacted by it.

The compensation is likely to be quite small but it should be given (imo). It was such a silly decision to speed it up when all it did was shave about 2 years off the plan - little savings for a government but a significant impact if you suddenly find you have to either work two more years that you have planned for or self-fund retirement for two years more than you expected.

@OneMoreTime23

"She had no idea that she would not get her state pension at 60."

As a genuine question and as you said your mother was financially astute, given that the legislation to increase women's pension age was passed in 1995 and it didn't take full effect until 2018 (ie 23 years later) how did she not know that she wouldn't get her pension at 60?

Well your mother was clearly not remotely financially astute then was she?

The victory today is not about the pension age increasing from 60, because there can only be a minuscule number of women that like your mother were living under a rock and missed it.

Well I knew about the first increase to the pensionable age, but the second came as a complete surprise. I doubt that the government will pay out though.

I’m pleased that they won as the process was clearly messed up, but I think the compensation should be a token amount.

The key problem I see with any compensation that is paid is that it will be paid for by today's taxpayers many of whom will be unlikely to get a state pension at all regardless of whether it is at 60 or 65 men or women.

If the government really has any "spare" cash lying around to pay for this then I would rather it was spent on education.

I do object to the equalisation. It robs grandmothers time and money to help with their grandchildren- particularly low income families. Also means more reliance on carers to help with aging great grandparents or spouses that we have a big shortage of and are relying on exploited people from other cultures. It's actually cultural destruction.

She got no correspondence about it whatsoever.

We didn’t get newspapers and as a teacher with a demanding job and 2 children she didn’t sit watching the news all evening. 🤷🏻‍♀️

It was introduced gradually, there was a sliding scale depending on birth date. DM and MIL are both WASPI age, but MIL is a year younger so had a SPA a couple of years older.

And it was publicised. But just like a lot of other things (CB for higher earners being a case in point) you can have all the publicity in the world, but many people go along in blissful ignorance.

Plus it looks like these many of these women haven't actually been financially disadvantaged by the change because the later pension age means that they qualify for the 'new' state pension, not the old one, that they would have qualified for if there had been no changes.

The new state pension (£204 pw) is larger than the old one (£156 pw) so, taking my DM as an example and say she lives to 80, and ignoring inflationary rises, she has 17 years at £204 pw instead of 20 years at £156 pw, so will receive £180k in pension instead of £162k (obviously this won't apply to everyone and you have factors like pension credit and other pensions in play, but she's fairly typical of her age in that she spent a good few years as a SAHP or pt worker and only a minority of her working life in full time employment. I do know she has nearly a full pension, due to CB NI credits as well as those she paid while she was working. Which would indicate that a token payment is reasonable, as many haven't actually lost out due to the changes.

Compensation is an important deterrent against future abuses so if compensation is found to be owing it will protect all citizens in future.

I don't want the government to feel they can fuck citizens about with no consequences.

I agree. I expect that the government will scrap it altogether at some point in the next 50 years, but if it doesn't, then based on the increases so far, the state pension age will be at least 75 by the time I get there. If I'm honest, I find it really difficult to have much sympathy with this issue.

I fall into this age group. From my point of view I knew about the 1995 Act and how it affected me. However for the goal posts to be changed at the end of 2011 with the coalition pensions bill was completely unacceptable, in my opinion. So in my case, only four years notice for another delay - I felt furious about this second bill, and still do. To be affected once - fair enough - especially as there was plenty of time to make financial decisions around new state pension age - to be targeted a second time with such an unacceptably short time scale was not on.

The thing is, every woman's experience of this is different. There will be many women who genuinely didn't know about the 1995 Act changes and so it was a bolt from the blue when they found out in their late 50's. (The second November 2011 Act none of us could plan for or ameliorate - much too late). The other very unfair thing about the 2011 Act was the timetable setting out each person's pension date. For one month difference in age, your pension date was delayed by four months. Very punitive indeed.

Life was so different then - equal opportunities were only beginning to come in in the 1970's and many women had no access to private or workplace pensions. So if they're relying solely on State Pensions then they're fucked.

But it's hard for young women today too - once you have children. My daughter had this conversation with me, and I could only agree and sympathise (and actually do two days a week childcare!!! to help out!!!)

So yes, many of you will probably be thinking 'why should those old women get anything?' - but actually what we have done by kicking up a fuss, campaigning, lobbying parliament, taking this to the Ombudsman is about having a voice - and maybe it will actually help the younger generation in making sure they can't get away with this type of thing again.

I was one of the lucky ones, having workplace pensions, so I could still retire just after 60 - but it has destroyed many women both with their health and lack of money. So many having to sell their houses - heartbreaking. Sorry for the essay, but it's something I feel so angry about for all the women affected.

@mitogoshi

i am confused as I thought this only applied to women born in the 1950’s as those born in the 1960’s have had long enough to prepare and save .

if you started work in 1994, you would have been born in the 1970’s.

i have tried looking for actual birth year that makes a woman a WASPI, but it only says 1950’s

edited to add, I am so glad it has been found that compensation needs to be paid as these women had a much harder time to be accepted on to pension schemes and to keep their jobs when they had small children and babies.

i would like to thank all the women before me who have made it possible to be as equal in terms of getting a pension scheme in place, and fighting for equal rights.
long way to go still, in terms of glass ceilings and equal pay, but we are on the right path, mostly,

But it's hard for young women today too - once you have children.

It's hard for young women who don't have children, too. They're not the only thing that makes life difficult or expensive.

Of course it is, this is just an example based on personal and my daughter's experience. Equality - eh?!!!!

Pensions will only disappear if the generations who follow the WASPI women - including you - lie down and let that happen.

I applaud any group that campaigns to protect their rights.

You could take a leaf out of their book if you want a decent pension.

What age of women does this affect? My mum was born in 1959.

This is a disaster. Ignorance should be no defence for lack of planning and its going to cost us all £10bn.

Exactly!!!!!

DM was affected by this.

What she was particularly angry about was not the age increase at all, but that she was told of the first increase in SP age, and then was told if she wanted to take pension at X new age, she needed to buy some years of NI credits to qualify, which she did.

Then very soon after that they moved the age again to Y and didn't bother to contact her about it.

So she didn't need to buy those years at all. They must have known they were going to increase the age at the point they told her she had to buy credits to get full SP, it was all around the same time, but they still made a point of telling her 'if you want your pension at X age you have to buy credits' which was completely untrue, as it turned out.

I don't think the Government should be allowed to move the goalposts for ANYONE that was already working and paying NI. If they wanted to raise the Pension Age, don't apply it to those that have already been paying NI, in good faith.

I'm 54. I had been already working and paying in for 32 years when they changed the age (in 2018). So instead of getting my pension in 6 years, I have to wait 11 years. That's a loss over £60k, and I won't get any compensation. That's not what I signed up for. I'm too young to be a WASPI. How is that remotely fair?

The WASPI challenge is based on inadequate consultation and transition, though, not the increase to SP age per se. As long as it gives proper notice, the government can abolish the SP (or raise the age to something where very few would ever live to claim it) and there's not a huge amount anyone can do about it.

There's no constitutional right to a SP (or to have a SP age that never increases).

I'm focussing on building up a private pension, which is the only way I will feel like I'm protected. It's a luxury to believe that the state will always be there to take care of you.